Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> Related to this: it seems that CARDDAV:calendar-description duplicates
> information that is already contained in DAV:displayname. Compare:
>
> "If present, the property contains a description of the calendar
> collection that is suitable for presentation to a user."
> (CARDDAV:calendar-description)
>
> and
>
> "Contains a description of the resource that is suitable for
> presentation to a user." (DAV:displayname)
> ...
Hi,
Werner Baumann noticed that RFC 4918 indeed *also* says:
> Purpose:
> Provides a name for the resource that is suitable for presentation to a user.
which conflicts with
> Description:
> Contains a description of the resource that is suitable for presentation to a user. This property is defined on the resource, and hence SHOULD have the same value independent of the Request-URI used to retrieve it (thus, computing this property based on the Request-URI is deprecated). While generic clients might display the property value to end users, client UI designers must understand that the method for identifying resources is still the URL. Changes to DAV:displayname do not issue moves or copies to the server, but simply change a piece of meta-data on the individual resource. Two resources can have the same DAV:displayname value even within the same collection.
(both in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.15.2>).
A description of a resource is not the same thing as the name of a
resource. Should we record that as issue? And if we do, what would be
the proposed resolution?
As far as I can tell, when DAV:displayname is set, it's almost always
used as a more verbose name, but not as a description.
BR, Julian